Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Male mallard midflight

Male Mallard Duck Midflight

Male Mallard Duck in midflight

A spectacular image of a Male Mallard duck in midflight. Particularly difficult because the duck is travelling towards the photographer, and therefore rapidly moving out of focus.

Nominate and Support --Fir0002 01:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot, tricky. HighInBC 03:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A little small, but I appreciate the difficulty. --Tewy 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I really don't like the pespective foreshortening, with the head "stuck tight to the body" - furthermore, the usual way of depicting/identifying flying birds is a side view (bottom view for preying birds), which would be more encyclopedic. Nice shot though, but not quite up to FP, IMHO. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking too narrowly...this picture is being used to illustrate Flight, as well as the duck itself.--DaveOinSF 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Per Janke. Additionally, it's somewhat grainy. --12:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Support per Tewy --James 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The angle is too weird -- makes the duck's head look abnormally small. howch e ng {chat} 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the duck's head IS abnormally small :) Weak support by the way, per Tewy --Bridgecross 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Tricky indeed. But the duck's position and the way it's flying (the wings) makes it look like a dead duck hung up to the roof by invisible wires. It lacks something for me, maybe because I find it unnatural. The blur, grain and the size doesn't help either. But as mentioned above, I appreciate the difficulty too. Arad 03:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of odd that you're calling nature in all its wonder "unnatural"...--DaveOinSF 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's definetly FP quality, and the bird's wings (if anything) show that flight isn't a perfect flapping of wings in unison to a beat. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Janke and Arad. I appreciate that it's a tough shot to take, but it doesn't feel like it's FA quality. --theSpectator _talk 01:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support beautiful photo. Could be used in an article about the duck or even about flight itself.--DaveOinSF 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. I didn't realize it when I wrote that comment, but indeed it is being used to illustrate Flight.--DaveOinSF 05:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Does picture perfect mean the same thing as perfect picture? In any case, this one is both! | AndonicO 11:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only the picture is high quality and must be hard to take, as Staxringold pointed out, it also shows an important detail of flight and demonstrates how nature is different from the idealizations in illustrations. at0 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good illustrative photograph. The only thing that looks a bit unnatural to me is the bokeh. Is the photograph unmodified from the original? - doniv 15:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Male mallard flight - natures pics.jpg --Fir0002 10:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]